Environmentalists say James Price Point decision could have ramifications for other projects

MARK COLVIN: In an extraordinary decision, the West Australian Supreme Court has ruled unlawful and invalid a number of the state's decisions to grant approval to the massive James Price Point gas hub.

The Chief Justice Wayne Martin issued damning rulings on three of the Environmental Protection Authority's approvals.

The reason: major financial conflicts of interest.

The Chief Justice said the majority of the board members had a financial interest in the matter but were still allowed to be involved in the approval process.

His decision also condemns the then environment minister for giving the go ahead despite the conflicts.

Caitlyn Gribbin reports.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: The $40 billion Kimberley gas hub in Western Australia has been a controversial issue for years.

The arguments have continued about the James Price Point project, even though the development was shelved by Woodside Petroleum in April because of escalating costs.

In today's Supreme Court in Perth, Chief Justice Wayne Martin ruled that some decisions about the project made by the Environmental Protection Authority were unlawful.

The case was brought forward by the Wilderness Society. Its spokesman is Peter Robertson.

PETER ROBERTSON: Well the bottom line was that we argued, and the Chief Justice agreed, that the fact that several members of the EPA board had been involved in the assessment and approval process for many, many months, at the same time that they had declared conflicts of interest, the fact of that meant that the ultimate decision was unlawful.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: Despite that conflict of interest, the board members were still allowed to be involved in the approval process, although the EPA chairman made the final decision on the project alone.

Peter Robertson says the Wilderness Society made a complaint about this.

PETER ROBERTSON: It was about shares in Woodside, and you know that was the main part of it. You know there was various different conflicts declared at various different times by various different members, but at the end of the day, the EPA chairman and the Minister for the Environment waved it through and said don't worry about it, carry on regardless.

And we said at the time, you can't do that. It's unlawful. They ignored us and now the Chief Justice has quashed the entire approval process.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: How did the Wilderness Society come to gather this information?

PETER ROBERTSON: I happened to call one of the board members of the EPA and asked why he hadn't been at a meeting that we attended to brief them on our ongoing concerns about the project, and he just let it drop, "By the way, you know, all four other members of the board other than the chairman have been ruled out due to conflicts of interest."

So that was the first we heard of it. And it was, you know, literally just a matter of days before the EPA was set to make its announcement.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: He says there are other decisions made by the EPA that could be called into question.

PETER ROBERTSON: There obviously have been other circumstances where members of the EPA have declared conflicts of interest, and obviously that needs to be looked into, whether that was sufficient to raise similar concerns about approvals that have been given in other circumstances.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: WA Greens MP Robin Chapple has been following the case closely.

He agrees today's decision could have ramifications for other projects.

ROBIN CHAPPLE: We've become aware that there were many other occasions when a number of declarations of interest were listed. It appears that all members, including the chair themselves, have made declarations of interest. What we don't know, and the Government refused to answer a question on this, was how many times several people had declared an interest at the same meeting over a proposed development.

Now, it would be really interesting to find out how many times multiple declarations have occurred, because in fact, if that is the case, this judicial finding might actually apply to developments that have already been passed by the board, and then accepted by the minister, where significant declarations of interest had occurred.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: Is there proof at this stage, though, that that could have happened?

ROBIN CHAPPLE: Well we don't have that proof. What we do have is a list of declarations of EPA board meetings for the last six months. And I think there's something, looking at the list, it would be about 20 or 30 in the last six months.

What we do know is over those projects at a specific time, that one or other of the board members did declare an interest. What we don't have is the number of occasions when multiple people declared an interest over a development.

CAITLYN GRIBBIN: The WA Environment Minister has been contacted for comment, but one hasn't been provided.